Google Maps needs a transparent post managment system for Local Guide account/submission issues

[nigelfreeney]

@AdamGT , @TravellerG , @tony_b , @ErmesT @LudwigGermany , @DshottDennis , @Mo_TravelleerX

I saw two comments on two posts Post 1 Guide for Editors & post 2 Blocked account by @MortenCopenhagen ,

I have seen many personalised posts by Morten trying to patiently explain that the person affected needs to review the Google Maps contributer guidelines to try and work out why they may have been severely penalised.

Why should Morten and all Local Guides have to work so hard under threat of drastic repercussions for making mistakes for rules that are not easily deciphered and where there is no direct link to support?

Instead of simply telling Local Guides that their account has been limited or blocked in some way let them know why and give them a proper opportunity to correct the problems.

I know when I thought I had been shadow banned, and Morten knows from experience, the shock of thinking you have been hit by a severe punishment. If you are lucky you get a vague message alerting you to an issue. The worst is the possibility of being shadow banned. This seems to be completely counter intuitive way of managing the Local Guides.

What makes it worse is the inconsistencies within the system. I cannot have any reference to my business in my account because I risk being shadow banned. But if I had registered my account with my business name a few years earlier I could still be using it without any issue. Of course, if I submit spheres or blue lines I can emblazon the nadir with business details. There is a considerable lack of logic here.

If you can see that someone is abusing the system there is a basic reporting system, only available via the mobile app, that lets you identify that the account is breaking one of Google Map Local Guides’ policies. But you are not actually allowed to give any specific details. I know from past experience that this has no effect on very obvious abuses - spamming with items for their business, and posting thousands of images to the same listing using it like their own personal photo album.

Google Maps already knows what the issues are when an account is rightly or wrongly penalised by a bot or a manual moderator action.

Part of the solution should be to have a proper warning system

1. For individual flags send off a message linked to specific example/s
2. If an account is shadow blocked actually inform the user that the account is blocked and the identified reasons why - with specific examples.
3. In these emails have links direct to a form to request a manual review where a mistake may have been made
4. Also include a link to information about how to correct the errors.

Google’s roots are as a search engine - if they are not in the best position to be able to have a bot capable of wizzing through accounts of all sizes and flagging up a set of results that included:

• the link to the review, photo, sphere or video these could be put into a holding state where they are not viewable unless corrected, deleted or a succesfully reviewed
• an identification of the policy or policies that are identified as not being followed
• to be able to edit it directly and resubmit it, or delete it, or ask for a manual review.
• If a bot flags an issue then there is a specific reason, right or wrong, that should be passed on to the Local Guide

I don’t think there is an instant way of implementing this process, it’s just that as it stands Google Maps is like the Great Oz behind the curtain. It dulls my enthusiasm for being a Local Guide that despite how hard I might work to build up a profile over many years, that it can all be undone in an instant.

[MortenCopenhagen]

Hi @nigelfreeney

Great post.

A few comments:

Google has a bigger problem on its hands. The spammers. The constant actions of spammers have created a situation where no Googlers dare to do anything that can assist the spammers in any way. That is most likely the reason why the information to honest and authentic Local Guides is very sparse and limited when it comes to explaining what we did wrong. Any such explanations will be analyzed and misused by spammers to continue to subvert the spam filters. Many business owners know that it is valuable to have a high rating on Google Maps when it comes to attracting new customers. So some don’t mind paying shady SEO experts to manipulate their ratings and buy someone to post fake positive reviews. Or to post fake negative reviews on their competitors’ Maps listings.

Until recently Google was not even informing Local Guides and all other Maps users when they decided to hide some reviews or photos. New regulations from the EU and other authorities have forced Google to be more transparent and give us options to appeal when our contributions are taken down. So the current situation is not new. The news is that Google started being more transparent about hidden contributions. So more users are not aware and unhappy about having their contributions taken down. Before this was also happening - but very few knew because it would take a lot of work figuring out how many and which contributions were taken down.

I think being more transparent is good.

Another point I would like to mention is the notion that the reasons for taking down a photo or review can always be found in the contribution itself. I wish it was that easy. Then most problems could be identified and corrected very easily. Fighting spammers requires a lot more sophisticated methods. They include looking at the history of the account, frequencies of contributions, analyzing patterns in photos and the review texts, and much more. When contributions get taken down because the account shows some form of suspicious behavior, then we will not be able to understand and explain why a particular photo or review was taken down by looking at the contribution itself and comparing it to the guidelines. This makes it extremely difficult and frustrating to help sanctioned Local Guides. When the AI identifies spam not based on the contribution itself but on prior actions and behaviors I can understand that Google does not want to share this info. It would be a HUGE help to the spammers.

The last aspect, that I think makes it difficult to analyze and correctly understand why some contributions are taken down is that of timing. Last night I uploaded a 3-second video to Google Maps. It was immediately blocked with a message explaining that it violated “our guidelines”. But this morning the video was published on the pin. So eighter there was a waiting list for the automated system to analyze the video before publishing it or some operator checked it and found it harmless overnight. And the spam filters not only run when we add new content they also recheck reviews and photos now and then. So what is allowed rapidly changes over time as the spam filters are constantly tweaked to catch more spam and hopefully fewer genuine and honest contributions.

In the past, I think we could have used the term “Shadowbanned” because no information was shared and no appeals were available unless you went through a ton of loops. But now with the new content moderation system being rolled out and more importantly improved over time, I think we are in a better place now. Google is implementing some of your suggestions. They have started marking and informing us when our contributions are taken down. And they try to give us more info about why something was taken down when possible. Sometimes there is even a one-click option to appeal the hiding. But sometimes we still have to guess and reflect critically on our past behaviors to maybe understand why we face sanctions. And this process can be painful.

The system is still under construction and in my opinion way too many genuine contributions from trustworthy Local Guides are still taken down. But we also see improvements. Over the last month or so I have seen the wording of messages related to moderated content be less accusatory and reflect the fact that the automated systems can make mistakes. And it seems that when we appeal for individual reviews action is taken within a few days.

Lastly, I want to assure you that the volunteer Connect Moderators are on this. It is by far the most talked about topic when we have a chance to talk to Googlers. From our recent gathering in Tokyo, I can also assure you that Google is very much aware of the many problems related to the wrongful moderation of user contributions. The agenda was designed with this problem in mind - so much so that there was no need to elaborate on the seriousness. We could move straight to constructive and frank discussions about how the problems can be solved.

I’m optimistic that better content moderation is coming our way, not here and now but later in 2024.

This is not meant to block detailed discussions of your proposals, @nigelfreeney . I hope to see a ton of interesting replies below.

Cheers

Morten

[MortenCopenhagen]

@nigelfreeney

Regarding maintaining a business listing using your Local Guides account. This is still possible, as long as you make sure not to take actions that can be viewed as conflicts of interest. This includes posting positive reviews on your own business, asking your friends and family to positively review your business, or writing critical reviews on your competitors’ listings.

But having a business name as the name on an LG account is probably over the line. I will suggest the Google Moderators take a look at this. Thanks for reporting it.

Morten

[TravellerG]

Thank you very much for this detailed post, my dear friend @nigelfreeney

According to me:

"Instead of simply telling Local Guides that their account has been limited or blocked in some way, let them know why and give them proper ‘guidance’ & opportunity to correct the problems."

This is the gist of your valuable post and it is extremely important.

I humbly request our Google Moderator friend @DeniGu to kindly escalate this point to higher authorities, please.

Incidentally, recently I was shocked when a very senior mentor and Indian Connect Moderator was suspended for no known reason - I too went desperate and even thought of leaving the platform when all is well! May be at this age, I won’t be able to afford a banning - I doubt!

There were many very capable LGs who have left the platform or gone inactive for the same reason - I feel very sad.

Kindly help us to inspire others than demotivating them - sorry for expressing our pain so loudly.

Thanks for your valuable support, always.

[TravellerG]

Hello, friend @nigelfreeney ,

With due respect to dear friend @MortenCopenhagen Ji, just blaming the ‘Spam’ is not the solution - spams are increasing tremendously these days, especially in photos and videos!

Looking only at a few destinations in South India, I feel that the Spam level is too much to be managed by Google alone because the “Local Knowledge” (of the PoI) also is needed / important to correct it.

Like, Guiding Stars, I suggest that “Trusted LGs” should be authorised to clean up these mess, at the earliest. - can I request our @DeniGu to add this point also in the escalation list, please.

Of course, many such points were listed (as my feedback) and given to the Connect Moderators who met in Japan.

I shall publish separate lists (on Google Maps and LG Connect) which are available, if it can help in any way.

Thanks for all efforts to make our platforms more efficient and helpful.

Regards

[nigelfreeney]

Hi @MortenCopenhagen , I think there is a slight misunderstanding in reference to the example business I gave. I am not reporting them - because as far as I am aware they are doing nothing wrong, which was my point - this might be worth a separate post in the same way you have chosen to answer it separately.

The way this evolved was that you could register your business profile name for me that might be “Nigel Freeney (NSign360)” or just “NSign360”. This was secifically where prfiles were created to gain Trusted Street View Photographer status. When the program stopped taking on new registrations the rules changed for new profile names. At the time I had my personal profile and didn’t have a busoness one. Any profile from before that period is allowed to keep their business name on their profile. This was the problem I was discussing,

I am happy to write a second post and move this part of the thread across to it?

Thanks,

Nigel

[MortenCopenhagen]

@nigelfreeney

I think it would be great to have the content moderation discussion without other discussions to dilute it. More new thoughts in how the content moderation can be better is really important and needed.

I was not aware that you run a 360 business.

All the best

Morten

[nigelfreeney]

Hi @TravellerG ,

I think that @MortenCopenhagen makes a number of very valid points and as a result will have answered a lot of my points . However, I do agree that in terms of spam as a reason for this situation, that Google has taken a negative approach rather than looking for positive solutions to the problem.

I had also come up with the idea of having trusted local moderators who knew the area well enough to spot infringments. Even if they didn’t have the power to directly moderate they could create a list to be acted upon. I was also led to believe that Google had identified that reviews and photos etc had no affect on SEO - but of course that may have changed. Even so I think the basis of the point is that it can have an effect on visibility and traffic to a given business.

Even though it may turn out to be a shorter thread than I anticipated I think a lot of good points have been discussed.

[nigelfreeney]

@MortenCopenhagen

“I was not aware that you run a 360 business.”

It’s a bit like the first rule of fight club “Don’t talk about Fight Club” (Film reference Brad Pitt)

I briefly added (NSign360) to my profile nickname and @AdamGT was kind enough to point out the risk I was taking of being shadowbanned. It was also discussed in other posts that promoting your business on the forum was not allowed, so I am very cautious about the way I discuss bussiness aspects of what we do.

Cheers,

Nigel

[MortenCopenhagen]

Hi @nigelfreeney and @TravellerG

The idea that volunteers (or paid staff) could be a solution to the problems related to moderating user contributions sounds tempting, but I’m quite certain that it is naive.

I looked around to see what data I could find on the volume of user contributions. Such stats are not normally publicly available.

These are citations from videos published by Google:

“More than a million reviews are posted every day”.

and

“Millions of reviews posted every day”.

“Every day Google receives more than 20 million contributions”.

I’m afraid the amount of spam we volunteers can find and remove is no match for this volume.

Cheers

Morten

[nigelfreeney]

@MortenCopenhagen ,

I don’t disagree with your principle logic. However, “It is better to light a candle than complain about the dark”. This was not meant to be a solution but the start of a discussion about steps that can be positively taken rather than doing nothing - or this case actively making things more confused. I wonder how many registered Local Guides there are?

[MortenCopenhagen]

@nigelfreeney

All is good to discuss. Much appreciated.

Regarding numbers.

The latest number of Local Guides Is from 2 or 3 years ago. There is over 150 million Local Guides. I think this is the biggest group of volunteers world wide.

This is only a fraction of the number of Maps users who can also submit edits, photos, and reviews to Google Maps. I remember some mentions that there at 1 or 1.5 billion Maps users. Such numbers are beyond my comprehension.

Out of the 150+ million Local Guides only a tiny fraction are signed up here on Connect. We all get assigned a user number when signing up. From this we estimate there are 1.6 million LGs registered on Connect.

But only a tiny fraction are active. My personal guess would be that less than 1000 visit Connect weekly.

I hope this helps.

Morten

[ErmesT]

Thank you for sharing this post, @nigelfreeney . I like your deep analysis, and I agree that more transparency is needed. I fully agree with the first reply by @MortenCopenhagen , with only one exception: instead of Spam I would use the word “Fraud”. Why? Because there are a lot of legal actions all around the world about fake contents, both from consumers associations and businesses associations, and several countries are acting with laws that are forcing the platforms where User Generated Contents (UGC) are hosted to remove them. In addition a recent law in the EU is forcing the same platforms to restore contents that are not against the rules.

While we can easily find some online explanation about that Google Maps is acting answering to us through posts that are not clearly explaining the background of some choice, like this: Maps user-generated content policy . I tried to go a bit in deep with the matter on Your review has not been published. Do you know why? , causing the disappointment of many Local Guides.

Actually Google is proceeding in two different ways about blocked contents: EU countries and Non EU countries. The explanation of this choice is hidden in a series of posts in Maps User Contributed Content Policy help page, and it is not easy to find it: European Union Digital Services Act Resolution Options : “You may have the option to appeal Google’s decision through our internal appeals process. If you’ve received any communication from Google about the option to appeal, please check it for more information.”

This different approach is making everything even more confused, especially because not explained in a clear way to the active Local Guides.

I am actually experiencing both situations: I am used to receive a notification about my blocked contents inside EU, while I have to check by myself for the blocked contents in reviews, photos and videos that I am adding in Maps in Japan, after a recent trip.

Personally I would keep the issue about businesses and how Google act with them in a separate post. What Google officially says is that “… organizations, brands, and businesses are not eligible for the Program. If you offer services for hire (such as marketing yourself as a Street View trusted provider), you are not allowed to bundle such services with your Local Guide membership.”. You can find it on the Local Guides Program Terms and Conditions :, and in How to be a Street View trusted photographer while also being a Local Guide , however we all know that the Street View program had several changes, and at first only the Local Guides were allowed to join the program, while now Google Maps require to use a separate (non Local guide) account for contributing as a business (SVTP).

There is a lot to be said about transparency, and how Local Guides perceive it. My hope is that this post can be added to the list of ones the team should read when deciding how to communicate with the community. I can only add that Morten and I are ambassadors who raise these topics every day

[MortenCopenhagen]

Dear @ErmesT

I was hoping and waiting for you to join this thread. Thanks for doing so and adding more perspectives.

Cheers

Morten

[ErmesT]

Thank you @MortenCopenhagen

As you can see from my reply the actual “transparency” is well hidden, even if publicly available.

I wonder if I have to write a standalone post just to explain “where” to find what Google posted publicly about the matter and how to find it

What about “Hidden transparency” as the title?

[MortenCopenhagen]

That would be fantastic, @ErmesT

Maybe the central sentences should be shown in images also. I trust you know how to link to specific sentences.

I would be pleased to comment on a draft.

Cheers

Morten

[nigelfreeney]

Hi @ErmesT , please could you tag me when you do this new post?

Cheers,

Nigel

[TravellerG]

Sorry for being a bit late to respond, dear friend @nigelfreeney .

“… MortenCopenhagen makes a number of very valid points and as a result will have answered a lot of my POINTS…”

Yes, always… He is an expert and can address many issues with authority - I highly appreciate this too.

Of course, many tutorials by our @MortenCopenhagen is of extremely high value and very efficient/effective.

Yes, such a great post… Many points have been discussed… But, unfortunately, we don’t know the actual benefit this is going to make.

Let us hope for the best and wait…

Regards

[TravellerG]

"… I’m afraid the amount of spam we volunteers can find and remove is no match for this volume… "

I fully agree with you, Morten Ji…

But, my point is… Let us start with something and make modifications to handle more… Like volunteers can mark a list & can be given to trusted regional heads - our @nigelfreeney has mentioned about this in the previous message to me.

Thanks for your active participation in these discussions.

Regards